Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T17:11:01.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Socrates and Plato in Post-Aristotelian Tradition—I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

G. C. Field
Affiliation:
The University of Liverpool

Extract

In a previous article, I have attempted to summarize the evidence of Aristotle about the relations of Socrates and Plato in the development of the theory of Ideas. It may be of interest now to carry the enquiry further, and to see whether writers later than Aristotle have anything of importance to say about the whole question of the general intellectual relationship between the two men. In particular we must enquire whether or how far they regard or say anything to lead us to regard the Dialogues of Plato as a record of Plato's own thought or as a biographical account of the thought of Socrates or—a third possibility—as both at the same time. And, in addition to this, we shall have to attempt some estimate of the value, if any, which we can put upon such statements—an estimate which would depend in its turn on our answer to the question how far they had access to original sources of information no longer extant.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1924

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 127 note 1 Aeschines’ works were still extant as late as the time of Philostratus (about 200 A.D.). See Krauss’ introduction to the Teubner edition of the fragments of Aeschines, p. 28.

page 128 note 1 With this cf. the passage from Dionysius of Helicarnassus quoted by Krauss, (loc. cit., p. 19)Google Scholar: οἰ τθικѿν διαλóγων ποιητα ν ἧν σωκρατιικν διδασκαλεῖον πν ἓξω IIλάωνος κ.τ.λ The extant fragments of Aeschines certainly bear this out.

page 130 note 1 Diels is clearly right in regarding the mention of Socrates in the Pseudo-Plutarch as a later interpolation. It does not occur in the parallel passages in Stobaeus (see Diels, pp. 14, 287).